Stakeholders interest and influence and their interactions in managing natural resources in Lake Hawassa catchment, Ethiopia

Figures & data

Figure 1. Location of the Hawassa catchment and learning watersheds

Figure 2. Stages used in conducting stakeholder analyses (adapted from Reed et al. 2009)

Table 1. Methods of data collection, issues discussed, searched, and observed as well as linked objectives and research questions

Data collection method	Types of data or information gathered	Linked objective	Linked research question
Key informant interviews; Literature review	Knowledge on landscape degradation and restoration. Direct and indirect drivers of land degradation and their relationship or linkages. Decision making processes and the decision-making environments. Potential beneficiaries and losers in the catchment due to the implementation of restoration measures.	Understand the system related to land degradation and NRM in the Hawassa catchment.	How are the livelihoods of the local communities influenced by land degradation and associated loss of ecosystem services?
Participatory transect walks and observations; Literature review	Severity of land degradation and changes over time. Landscape restoration efforts. Communities use and value ecosystem services. Spatial distribution of key resources within a community.	Same as above	Same as above
Key informant interviews; Literature review	Mission and agenda of stakeholders involved in land degradation and restoration. Forms of key stakeholder involvement. What general improvements to the management of natural resources would they like to see.	Identify stakeholders involved in NRM.	Do the stakeholders involved in managing natural resources diverge in their mission, interest, and strategic options?
Key informant interviews; Literature review	Perception of stakeholder on landscape restoration initiatives (or interest on landscape restoration initiatives). Power and power resources (information, knowledge, material). Quantity and quality of connections among different stakeholders (i.e. interactions amongst stakeholders).	Understand stakeholder interest, priorities and power as well as interactions amongst stakeholders.	How do power and power resources influence the contribution of a stakeholder to managing natural resources? How can trust building amongst stakeholders be improved? Are empowerment measures needed to better manage natural resources in the Hawassa catchment?

Table 2. Definition of some of the words used in data collection and analysis (adapted from Zimmermann and Claudia 2007; Matti 2009)

Words/terms/phrases	Definitions in the context of the study
Stakeholder analysis	Refers to a process of systematically gathering and analysing qualitative information to determine whose interests should be considered when developing and/or implementing a policy or program.
Power	Refers to quantity of resources and ability to mobilize those resources for or against landscape restoration.
Power Resources	Refers to knowledge, expertise and capabilities, as well as material resources that allow the key stakeholder to exert a formative influence on the use and management of natural resources or to manage and monitor access to these resources.
Interest	Refers to the supporting, neutral or opposing positions of stakeholders in relation to landscape restoration.
Influence	Refers to stakeholder influence on achieving the objectives of landscape restoration (i.e. whether they are key stakeholders or just passive players).
Relationships/connections	Refers to the number and quality of relationships to other actors who are under obligation to or dependent on the key stakeholder.
Legitimacy	Refers to institutional position, ascribed or acquired rights, e.g. which are formalized by law; the task being undertaken or through public consent and which is legitimate.
Primary stakeholders	Refer to stakeholders directly affected by landscape restoration.
Secondary stakeholders	Are those who are involved only indirectly or temporarily in landscape restoration, such as university and research systems, civil societies, and other less related government organizations.
Key stakeholders	Refer to role players capable of significantly influencing landscape restoration by using their capabilities, knowledge, and position of power. Key stakeholders are those actors without whose support and participation the envisaged results of landscape restoration are not likely to be achieved; they may even be able to block the reform project.

Figure 3. Gully erosion in the catchment dissecting agricultural lands and villages (Photo credit: Wolde Mekuria and Amare Haileslassie)

Table 3. Agenda and forms of stakeholder’s involvement in natural resources management

Stakeholders	Type	Agenda	Forms of stakeholder involvement in NRM
Agriculture and natural resource offices at different levels (S1)	Key	Implementing integrated watershed development in collaboration with the local communities.	Building the capacity of practitioners, providing material and technical support, sharing experience. They also provide support during community mobilization and are responsible for preparing implementation guidelines and principles.
Environment and Forest Protection offices at different levels (S2)	Key	Implementing forest development activities and put in place an environmental management system that sustain utilization of environmental resources.	Providing technical support on forest development activities and sharing their relevant experience on other related restoration activities.
South Agricultural Research Institute (SARI) (S3)	Secondary	Generating evidence through action research.	Providing expertise related to impact assessment, undertaking demonstration on different kinds of natural resources management options, and selecting and out-scaling best-practices.
Wondo Genet Agricultural research centre (S4)	Secondary	Same as SARI (S3).	Same as SARI (S3) – though their degree of involvement varies.
Hawassa University (S5)	Secondary	Same as SARI (S3).	Same as SARI (S3) – through their degree of involvement varies.
Rift Valley Basin development office (S6)	Key	Implement a research based, participatory and sustainable integrated water resource management system within the basin.	Meeting facilitation, community mobilization, experience sharing, and providing expertise.
SNNPR Water Resources Development Bureau (S7)	Secondary	Assessing water and land potential areas that could be developed through irrigation.	Coordination and facilitation of meetings; provision of resource persons.
Small and micro enterprise office (S8)	Secondary	Establish vibrant and competitive micro and small enterprises.	Selection of youth groups, provision of financial support through short- and long-term credit facilities.
SNNPR National Regional Marketing and Cooperatives Bureau (S9)	Secondary	Enabling cooperatives of rural and urban society in different types and levels.	Selection of youth groups, establishing cooperatives, providing trainings.
SNNPR Health Bureau (S10)	Secondary	Providing health services and ensuring accessibility and utilization.	Provision of technical support on the link between family planning and natural resources management (NRM).
SNNPR Culture and Truism Bureau (S11)	Secondary	Study, preserve, sustain, and develop the regions natural, cultural, language, historical heritages & other cultural assets.	Provision of technical support or providing trainings on the link between NRM and Tourism.
Hawassa city forest, environment and climate change regulation office (S12)	Key	Conserve and restoring the environment while enhancing people’s livelihoods.	Providing information, community mobilization, sharing resources, providing resource person.
German International Cooperation (GIZ) (S13)	Key	Promoting a market-oriented, ecological, and social economic order.	Experience sharing, providing technical and financial support, and providing documents on capacity development strategies and support while doing training need assessment.
SOS Sahel (S14)	Key	Improving the smallholder livelihoods and pastoralists through better management of their environment.	Conducting studies and generating knowledge, capacity building, providing financial and material support.
People in Need (PIM) (S15)	Key	Improving lives of the poor in Ethiopia through development and humanitarian projects.	Provision of expertise/resource persons, experience sharing & facilitation of meetings/trainings.
Netherlands Development organization (SNV) – Ethiopia (S16)	Secondary	Supports people to enjoy the freedom to pursue their own sustainable development.	Providing technical and financial support related to NRM.
Population, Health and Environment (PHE) – Ethiopia consortium (S17)	Secondary	Contribute to sustainable development in Ethiopia by promoting and enhancing the integration of PHE.	Providing technical and financial support related to NRM.
Local communities (farmers) (S18)	Primary	Ensure better management of their environment to sustaining their livelihood.	Contributing free and participating in decision-making, for example, when demarcating/delineating areas for establishing exclosures.
Local administrative bodies at different levels (S19)	Key	Same as S18.	Mobilizing local communities and demarcating lands for biological conservation measures (e.g. exclosures). Ensure labour and in-kind contributions to the restoration activities.
Industrial Park Development Corporation (S20)	Secondary	Improving the sustainability and resilience of economic growth.	Providing financial support as part of their social responsibility.
Hotels and resorts (S21)	Secondary	Deliver enduring memorable experience to our guests, job satisfaction to our associates, and sustainable profit to the owners.	Providing financial support as part of their social responsibility.
Factories (MOHA, textile, BGI) (S22)	Secondary	Maximizing benefits through using cheaper labour force, local inputs and resources.	Providing financial support as part of their social responsibility.
Hawassa Lake Lovers Association (HLLA) (S23)	Secondary	Restoring the lake to its previous state.	Provision of expertise/resource persons, experience sharing.
Sidama Development Association (SDA) (S24)	Secondary	Mobilizing and coordinating the capacity of the people, and its supporters to implement development activities in the areas of environment and other.	Providing support during community mobilization and implementation.
South Ethiopia People Development Association (SEPDA) (S25)	Secondary	Same as S24.	Providing support during community mobilization and implementation.

Figure 4. Graphic representation of the core functions of identified stakeholders. The full names of the stakeholders are presented in Table 3

Figure 5. Strategic options of selected key and secondary stakeholders. DV refers to development vision, OE – operational effectiveness, FI – flexibility and innovation, CF- contractual fidelity, CN-communication, RL – relationships, MG – management, TR – trust, CN – conflicts, and CE – capitalising on experience. The degree of agreement of each stakeholder with the statements (or strategic options) varied between – and ++. The sum of the ratings of the 9 selected stakeholders could range from −18 to 18. S1 refers to Agriculture and natural resource offices at different levels, S2 – Environment and Forest Protection offices at different levels, S3 – South Agricultural Research Institute, S6 – Rift Valley Basin development office, S12 – Hawassa city forest, environment and climate change regulation office, S13 – German International Cooperation (GIZ), S14 – SOS Sahel, S15 – People in Need, and S17 – Population, Health and Environment (PHE) – Ethiopia consortium

Figure 6. The perceived stakeholders’ legitimate power based on seven types of authority

OQ – Setting objectives, norms and quality control; RS – Allocating or denying resources; TR – Defining roles, tasks and responsibilities; SP – Structuring the participation in decision-making processes; CI – Controlling access to information and knowledge; RS – Allocating rewards, recognition and sanctions; CM – Channelling messages to superiors and external bodies. Score 3 denotes strong, score 2 intermediate and score 1 weak authority.

Figure 7. Analysis of stakeholders’ interest and influence. Scale for interest: +2 strong approval, active participation; +1 moderate approval; participation variable; 0 indifferent, waits and observes further developments; −1 moderate rejection; passive participation; −2 strong rejection. Scale for influence: +2 very influential; +1 influential; 0 influential in some areas; −1 little influence: −2 minimal or no influence on progress towards the implementation of the planned project activities

Table 4. The level of trust among the different stakeholders

Stake -holders	Stakeholders																									Trust others
	S1	S2	S3	S4	S5	S6	S7	S8	S9	S10	S11	S12	S13	S14	S15	S16	S17	S18	S19	S20	S21	S22	S23	S24	S25
S1		5	5	5	5	3	4	3	4	3	3	5	4	3	3	3	5	5	5	2	2	2	3	3	3	3.7
S2	5		5	5	5	3	4	3	3	4	4	5	5	2	3	3	3	5	3	3	3	2	4	4	4	3.8
S3	5	5		5	5	3	3	2	2	3	3	4	5	5	4	4	3	5	5	2	2	2	4	4	4	3.7
S4	5	5	5		5	3	3	2	2	3	3	4	5	5	4	4	3	5	5	2	2	2	4	4	4	3.7
S5	5	5	5	5		3	3	2	2	3	3	4	5	5	4	4	3	5	5	2	2	2	4	4	4	3.7
S6	4	4	5	5	5		5	3	4	4	4	5	5	5	4	3	3	5	5	3	3	3	4	4	4	4.1
S7	4	4	4	4	4	4		4	4	4	4	4	3	3	3	3	3	4	4	3	3	3	4	4	4	3.7
S8	4	4	4	4	4	4	4		4	4	4	4	3	3	3	3	3	4	4	3	3	3	4	4	4	3.7
S9	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4		4	4	4	3	3	3	3	3	4	4	3	3	3	4	4	4	3.7
S10	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4		4	4	3	3	3	3	3	4	4	3	3	3	4	4	4	3.7
S11	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4		4	3	3	3	3	3	4	4	3	3	3	4	4	4	3.7
S12	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4		3	3	3	3	3	4	5	3	3	3	4	4	4	3.7
S13	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5		5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5.0
S14	5	5	3	3	4	4	3	3	3	3	3	5	3		5	5	5	5	5	2	3	3	4	4	4	3.8
S15	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	4	4		4	4	5	5	4	4	4	4	4	4	4.6
S16	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	4	4	4		4	5	5	4	4	4	4	4	4	4.6
S17	4	4	4	4	3	4	4	4	4	3	3	4	5	5	3	3		5	5	3	3	3	4	4	4	3.8
S18	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5		5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5.0
S19	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	4	4	4	4	4	5		3	3	3	5	5	5	4.5
S20	4	4	4	4	3	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	3	3	3	3	4	4		3	3	3	3	3	3.5
S21	4	4	4	4	3	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	3	3	3	3	4	4	3		3	3	3	3	3.5
S22	4	4	4	4	3	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	3	3	3	3	4	4	3	3		3	3	3	3.5
S23	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	4	4	4	4	4	5	5	3	3	3		5	5	4.5
S24	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	4	4	4	4	4	5	5	3	3	3	5		5	4.5
S25	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	4	4	4	4	4	5	5	3	3	3	5	5		4.5
‘is trusted’	4.5	4.5	4.5	4.5	4.4	4.1	4.2	3.9	4.0	4.1	4.1	4.5	3.9	3.8	3.6	3.6	3.6	4.6	4.6	3.0	3.1	3.0	4.0	4.0	4.0

The level of trust and mistrust was evaluated based on the average values, and that average values with [4–5], (3–4), (2–3], (1–2], (≤ 1) indicates pronounced trust, moderate trust, little trust, moderate mistrust and pronounced mistrust, respectively.

Table 5. Perceived access to and control of resources and competencies

Stakeholder	Assessment
	Indicator one: Access and control	Indicator two: Competencies
(S1)	+2	+1
(S2)	+1.5	+1
(S3)	+1	+1.5
(S4)	+1	+1.5
(S5)	+1.5	+1.5
(S6)	+1.5	+0.5
(S7)	0.5	+1
(S8)	0.5	0
(S9)	0.5	0
(S10)	−1	+0.5
(S11)	−1	+0.5
(S12)	+1	+1
(S13)	+1	+1.5
(S14)	+1	+1.5
(S15)	+0.5	+1
(S16)	+0.5	+1
(S17)	+0.5	+1
(S18)	+1	0
(S19)	+2	+1
(S20)	+1	−1
(S21)	+1	−1
(S22)	+1	−1
(S23)	−1	+1
(S24)	−1	+1
(S25)	−1	+1

Values for indicator one (i.e. access and control of resources) indicate: +2 has full access to and control of resources; +1 has limited access to and control of resources; 0 has limited access to but no control of resources; −1 has little access to and no control of resources; −2 has neither access to nor control of resources. Values for indicator two (i.e. competencies) indicate: +2 is well able to formulate his/her own interests and needs and can organise. +1 can formulate his/her own interests and needs but lacks basic skills and the ability to organise. 0 is able at least to put across his/her own interests and needs. −1 can formulate some aspects of his/her own needs and interests, but lacks the ability to organise, lacks mobility and lacks time. −2 does not have the capability to formulate his/her own needs and interests, lacks the ability to organise, and lacks basic skills, mobility, and time.

Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Stringer LC, Quinn CH, Stringer LC. 2009. Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manage. 90(5):1933–1949. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zimmermann A, Claudia M. 2007. Multi-stakeholder management. Tools for stakeholder analysis: 10 building blocks for designing participatory systems of cooperation. Eschborn (Germany): GTZ.

 Google Scholar

Matti S. 2009. Exploring public policy legitimacy: a study of belief-system correspondence in Swedish environmental policy [Doctoral dissertation]. Lulea (Sweden): Lulea University Press.

 Google Scholar